The guiding principle, being utilitarianism, is to act in the way which will always produce the maximum overall amount of goodness in the world. The basic purpose of morality is making the world a much better place to live in (Hinman, 2014). Morality is also about producing some good consequences and not having any kind of good intension. It also states that we should be doing whatever brings the maximum benefit (intrinsic value) to the entire humanity.
Case: rule utilitarian vs. act utilitarian
The case under study is of the surgeon who has to decide killing of a normal, but unjust person for the sake of saving five sick people. An act utilitarian in this case would be considering every probable consequences of sacrificing the sixth normal patient while on the other hand, a rule utilitarian will possibly look for the consequences associated with performing such an operation every time a situation like thos would arise. One of the potential rules would claim that: whenever any surgeon can kill one healthy person for the basic purpose of transplanting his organs to save more than one person who actually needs them, then he can surely do it.
However, as a result of this situation, some major issues may arise. For instance, relatively healthier people will stop going to the hospitals and many would fear that a transplant operations might be performed, etc. Hence, a rule utilitarian will say that we should follow the opposite rule and don't simply harvest the organs of healthy people to give them to the ones who are sick. For a rule utilitarian, it would be completely immoral for any surgeon to kill the normal man and in this case the sixth man. Of course, it is also possible that the act utilitarian ...
... middle of paper ...
...ciding whether she might intervene. In addition, Thomson claims that if the bystander fails in answering this hypothetical question, that she will indeed sacrifice herself and resultantly might not intervene.
References
Degrees of clarity (n.d.). Utilitarianism and the Transplant Surgeon Objection. Retrieved from http://www.degreesofclarity.com/writing/utilitarianism/
Gorr, M. (1990). THOMSON AND THE TROLLEY PROBLEM. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 59(1), 91-100.
Hinman, L. M. (2014). Utilitarianism: An Introduction. Ethics Matter. Retrieved from http://ethics.sandiego.edu/presentations/AppliedEthics/Theory/Utilitarianism.pdf
Nucci, E. D. (n.d.). Self-Sacrifice and the Trolley Problem. Philosophical Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/1322471/Self-Sacrifice_and_the_Trolley_Problem
Utilitarianism argues that, we need to consider how much overall happiness of the action could bring, considering everyone involved. For example, how will Brittany’s choice for euthanasia affect her husband, friend, and parents? In Craig’s case, how will his choice for euthanasia affect his wife, son, and daughter? In both of their cases, that devastation that they will die is already difficult for them, and their families. Craig’ wife and his two children were sad that he was making the decision to die before his illness consumed him. Her daughter speaks on how hard it was for her, and in a sense relieved, she was not present when her father took his own life. Brittany was a newlywed, it was extremely sad for her husband and brother in law to know she was taking her life beforehand. To make a choice an act-utilitarian would need to balance out the overall happiness compared to the suffering. Both Brittany and Craig will eventually die. If they both let their terminal illness progress they would inflict extreme suffering on themselves and their family as they witnessed their pain. In Craig’s case, his illness will get worst it will cause paralysis. His major concern was on how would he be able to let
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule utilitarians. An act utilitarian believes that a person must think things through before making a decision. The only exception to this idea applies with rules of thumb; decisions that need to be made spontaneously. The right act is the one that results in the most utility. Rule utilitarians believe that an act is only deemed appropriate if it fits in line with the outline of valid rules within a system of rules that target the most favorable outcome.
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
The main principle of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. It states that, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p330). In other words, it results with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people that are involved.
Bailey, Andrew, ed. First Philosophy: Fundamental Problems and Readings in Philosophy. 1st ed. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2002.
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "Rule-Utilitarianism versus Act-Utilitarianism." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 12. Print.
Utilitarianism is an example of Consequentialist Ethics, where the morality of an action is determined by its accomplishing its desired results. In both scenarios the desired result was to save the lives of thousands of people in the community. Therefore, a Utilitarian would say that the actions taken in both of the scenarios are moral. Since an (Act) Utilitarian believes that actions should be judged according to the results it achieves. Happiness should not be simply one's own, but that of the greatest number. In both scenarios, the end result saved the lives of 5,000 members of the community. The end result is the only concern and to what extreme is taken to reach this result is of no matter. In these instances the things that are lost are an Inmates religious beliefs or a mothers fetus, on the other hand Thousands of citizens were saved from dying from this disease.
Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the female patient.
However, this creates a conflict of morality. He comes to the conclusion that there is a flaw with utilitarianism unless we completely change the parameters. By doing so, killing one person to save two, and doing so on a regular basis would be okay. He uses the example that Y and Z are dying. Y needs a heart transplant. X needs a lung transplant. If a recently deceased person were a donor, Y and Z can be saved. Y and Z then ask, Why don 't we just kill a suitable donor? The medical procedures to save Y and Z are available, and in other medical treatments, a doctor 's failure to provide the service would be regarded as equivalent to killing the two patients. So, by not killing an innocent "donor" for the necessary heart and lungs, the doctor chooses to kill Y and Z. Harris proposes objections to killing one to save two and in the end, the Survival Lottery comes out of it. The survival lottery puts everyone on an even playing field for being chosen. In this situation, you would have to make sure that everyone is aware that their own chances of living are increased due to the fact that organ donation will no longer depend on the few people who become organ donors. Those who object to being chosen in the survival lottery would be labeled
Thomson, Judith J. "The Trolley Problem." The Yale Law Journal 94.6 (1985): 1395-415. JSTOR. Web. 20 Jan. 2009.
... and also towards the wellness of all human being in general. There is not anyone watching over me or judging my moral code. However, I just feel responsible for my actions; a moral code should always be in my consciousness, and it tells me how to act in all situations. A thing to remember about these theories is that they are concerned with the greater good. Utilitarians do not care about a person personal life or whether a person actions happen to hurt some people. As long as the results of a person’s actions lead to more pleasure than pain, you are in the clear. For me, being a good person means doing good, and make good decisions. Human beings are not to be viewed as a means to an end but as ends in themselves. Utilitarianism believes that humans are to be treated with respect, but respect must take into account the everyday situations in which a person live.
1. Utilitarianism was described by J. Bentham as the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Utilitarianism is a holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the amount of happiness. It is therefore a form of consequentialism, which means that the moral value of an action is determined only by its outcome, so one can only weigh the morality of an action after thinking about all its potential consequences. Utilitarianism focuses more on the happiness of the greatest number whereas Aristotle focuses more on the happiness of the individual person Virtue ethics developed by Aristotle which is a moral theory that focuses on the development of virtuous character. In virtue ethics, character is the key to the moral life, for it is from a virtuous character that moral conduct and values naturally arise. Aristotle believes that the highest goal of humanity is the good life or Eudaimonia which means happiness and human flourishing. Developing virtues is the way to achieve a rich and satisfying life. According to him, virtues make
In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense2007, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it maximizes adult organ donations (which are the greater good) so that the number of lives saved would increase along with the quality of life, and also saves money and time.
Morality as a whole tries to create a distinction between right and wrong, good and bad. Making decisions should arguably always be aimed towards good. Under the philosophical doctrine of Utilitarianism, philosophers like Bentham and Mill recognize that human kind should make their lives useful and good through bringing about happiness or pleasure. The idea of the “Greatest Happiness Principle was introduced by Bentham, who was a Utilitarian predecessor to Mill. According to Mill, human lives should abide by the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” This principle states that actions are good as they tend to promote happiness; and bad as they promote the reverse of happiness, therefore humans should make a conscious choice of action that will lead